On March 5th, a website called mito22 went live to raise funds and encourage the production of promotional items for the Jair Bolsonaro The re-election to the presidency. The site raised funds using a token from the BNB Chain blockchain network, MITO22.
The portal was taken down by the Electoral Justice (TSE)but with elections approaching – and cryptocurrencies becoming increasingly popular – discussions on the topic continue.
MYTH22: Illegal token or free speech?
Gabriella Miranda, a lawyer specializing in electoral law, says that the “MITO22” token was launched on March 5, a date much earlier than the one determined by the Electoral Court, “in addition to having its transaction carried out by the PancakeSwap brokerage, which does not require binding through CPF”, bringing with it several impediments to any type of subsequent conversion into donation for electoral purposes.
If the purpose of the token is to support Bolsonaro’s re-election in 2022, the lawyer stresses that this support could not be in an economic way – not in a legal way. It would at most be a way to propagate the candidate’s image or become a virtual fan club.
“The creation of such a token can be considered as the materialization of the admiration of its creators towards the President, being the mere manifestation of their freedom of expression.”
However, Miranda claims that the crypto market is full of fraud against investors, and “the emergence of a new asset with the image of a public figure, curiously, in an election year, is at least something susceptible to distrust.”
Is financing an election campaign with a token legally legal?
Miranda recalls that, in the 2018 elections, there was the first manifestation of the TSE regarding the ban on the use of cryptocurrencies to receive financial donations for election campaigns.
“The rationale was that there were transaction risks with these assets, and that they do not allow the identification of the origin of the resources or their control by the national financial system.”
This position, for the lawyer, has been applied to all lawsuits in the country since then, in an inverse movement, for example, to what happens in U.S.
“In the United States, almost eight years ago, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) approved such contributions.”
Despite being prohibited to finance political campaigns, Miranda explains that candidates must declare their digital assets to the TSE, as has already occurred, for example, in the rendering of accounts for the 2020 municipal elections.
She emphasizes that, regardless of the discussion around the use of these assets for electoral financing, the fact is that the electoral calendar predicts that only from May 15th it will be possible to start the campaign for prior fundraising in the form of crowdfunding. .
“As long as they do not make requests to vote and obey the other rules regarding electoral propaganda on the internet”, he adds.
The TSE resolution, which deals with the collection and expenditure of resources by political parties and candidates or candidates and on the rendering of accounts in the elections, determines that, in cases of collective financing, there must be “mandatory identification, with the full name and the registration number in the register of individuals (CPF) of each donor, the value of the amounts donated individually, the form of payment and the dates of the respective donations; (art. 22, item II, Resolution No. 23.607/2019)”.
Alex Santos, General Manager of Digital Litigation at Opice Blum, Bruno e Vainzof Advogados, also discusses the issue of identifying a crypto asset.
“The identification of the donor and the traceability of the transactions are two requirements demanded by the electoral legislation”, he says.
According to Santos, these requirements are not sufficiently met by the use of tokens, due to the technology used by them.
The collection through tokens can be categorized as a “hidden donation”, violating the principle of transparency and making it difficult to track electoral donations, according to the lawyer.
“The issue of hidden donations has already been the subject of judgment by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 5394”, he concludes.
“Political saints” on NFT can you?
Not for Miranda. The distribution of santinhos that are means of electoral propaganda, in the form of non-fungible tokens (NFT)which has, in its very essence, a commercialization character, opening exclusive “privileges” and “access” to its content for those who hold them, ends up colliding with an old paradigm in the lawsuits: vote buying.
“After all, when a digital item is tokenized and becomes an NFT, that item has a seal of authenticity and can have an “owner”. Once the property is registered, this item can be sold, paying for the right of use to the “owner”.
Therefore, she claims that such conduct permeates vote buying, “resulting in a possible abuse of economic power, and may even be treated as electoral corruption.”
In Santos’ view, the distribution of booklets in the format of NFTs is something possible. However, like the physical saints, distribution is only allowed until the eve of the election.
“The distribution of leaflets on election day is considered an exit practice, punishable by imprisonment from six months to one year and a fine”, he comments.
In any case, although it is possible to distribute NFT holy cards, this may not be the best format.
“This is due to the main characteristic of NFTs: being unique and irreplaceable by another of the same species, quantity and quality (infungible),” he explains.
Source: Moneytimes
I am an author at Global happenings and I mostly cover automobile news. In my time working in the automotive industry, I have developed a keen interest in the latest developments and trends. My writing skills have also allowed me to share my knowledge with others through articles and blog posts.
